Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 271 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Santosh Sharma

2025-04-09

MILIND RAMESH PHADKE, RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI

body2025
ORDER Phadke, J:- 1. The instant Writ Appeal Under section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nayayalay (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is preferred against the order dated 6.3.2024, passed by Writ Court in Writ Petition No.3264/2013, whereby the order of penalty of stoppage of one increment for one year with cumulative effect vide order dated 22.1.2002, which was modified by the Appellate Authority by deleting "one year" from the punishment order, thus, making the punishment to be stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect, was set aside treating the said orders to be passed in non-compliance of rule 18 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) rules, 1966 and misconstruing the appellate order to be the original order, hence alleging the findings recorded by the learned writ Court to be bad in law, its quashment has been sought. 2. Draped with brevity, the facts necessary for adjudication of the present controversy are that the respondent, who was appointed on the post of Constable on 18.3.1992 and was posted at Police Station Seondha District Datia on 8.6.2000 faced with an allegation that one Manoj Kumar Dubey after attending his date in the trial Court when was passing nearby from the police station Seondha, that at the instance of Sub-Inspector Anar Singh Sikarwar and ASI V.N. Chaturvedi, the petitioner caught hold of him and while abusing him had assaulted him and thereafter took him to the Police Station Seondha and confined him in custody till 10.6.2000 without any reason and thereafter released him. 3. On the complaint being made against the petitioner and other persons, investigation was carried-out and enquiry was made by the Superintendent of Police, Datia and after the enquiry the petitioner was charge-sheeted on 1.11.2000. The departmental enquiry was conducted by Additional S.P., Datia and allegations against the petitioner were founds to be proved. In wake of enquiry, the petitioner was inflicted with punishment of stoppage of one increment for one year with cumulative effect vide order dated 22.1.2002. The departmental enquiry was conducted by Additional S.P., Datia and allegations against the petitioner were founds to be proved. In wake of enquiry, the petitioner was inflicted with punishment of stoppage of one increment for one year with cumulative effect vide order dated 22.1.2002. An appeal was preferred against the said order before the Inspector General, Chambal Zone, Gwalior, which was dismissed vide order dated 7.8.2002 and after more than five years of appellate order, an amended order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority i.e. Superintendent of Police, Datia on 22.8.2007, whereby the word "one year" in the punishment was deleted, thus, modified the punishment to stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. 4. Alleging the said order dated 22. 8.2007 passed by Superintendent of Police, Datia to be in clear violation of Regulation 270(4) of Police Regulation Act, as no opportunity of hearing was granted before passing of such an order, the respondent herein had preferred the writ petition and the learned Writ Court while allowing the petition had quashed the orders dated 1.11.2000, 22.1.2002, 22.8.2007, 7.8.2002 and 9.12.2010. Alleging the said order to be bad in law, the present writ appeal has been filed by the State. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants/State submitted that the reliance placed by the Writ Court on rule-18 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) rules,1966 and holding that without permission of competent authority, no common proceedings could have been initiated and as without any permission from the competent authority enquiry had been initiated against two or more persons, then the enquiry had vitiated, is wholly misconceived and improper, as firstly the very rule-18 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) rules,1966 was not applicable to the present case so far as the petitioner was concerned, who was a Constable and as per note appended to the Scheduled annexed to the rules of 1966, class-III (non ministerial) post in the Police Department are governed by the M.P. Police Regulations framed under the provisions of the Indian Police Act and the Control and Appeal rules would not apply to them, thus, when the very schedule to the Rules of 1966 makes it clear that the rules of 1966 would not be applicable to the class-III (non ministerial) posts, to which the petitioner belonged, reliance placed on rule-18 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules,1966 was highly misconstrued and improper. To bolster his submissions, reliance was placed in the matter of Raju Singh Ahirwar v. State of M.P. passed by Division Bench of this Court reported in (2017) 4 MPLJ 656 . 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order and had submitted that no illegality has been committed by learned Single Judge in setting aside the impugned orders and quashing the penalty imposed against the petitioner, as firstly no permission was sought for conducting a joint departmental enquiry against three persons; and secondly the order dated 22.8.2007, whereby the order of original penalty was modified since was against the spirit of Police Regulations 226 and was in total ignorance of the procedure prescribed under Regulations 270 (4) of Police Regulations, therefore, the learned Single Judge was right in holding that the respondent had faultered for such punishment and the manner of its infliction, thus, had prayed for dismissal of the present appeal. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. In para 18 of the impugned order it appears to this Court that the learned Single Judge got swayed with the fact that when there is no mechanism provided under the Police Regulations for the joint enquiry of two government servants of different status and stature, therefore, the provisions of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) rules,1966 could be borrowed and thus, had relied upon Rule-18 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules,1966, which contemplates about common proceedings. Though in the aforesaid para the entire Rule-18 has been quoted, but learned Single Judge missed the note, which has been appended alongwith the Schedule annexed with the Rules of 1966, which reads as under:- "Class III (Non-ministerial) posts in the Police Department are governed by the Madhya Pradesh Police regulations framed under the provisions of the Indian Police Act. The Control and Appeal Rules, will, therefore, not apply to them." 9. The said stipulation prohibits the applicability of rules of 1966 to Class III (non-ministerial) post in the Police Department, therefore, the findings as to the applicability of rules of 1966 has to be given quietus in the present fact situation so far as petitioner is concerned. Thus, to this extent, the order appears to be not sustainable. 10. The said stipulation prohibits the applicability of rules of 1966 to Class III (non-ministerial) post in the Police Department, therefore, the findings as to the applicability of rules of 1966 has to be given quietus in the present fact situation so far as petitioner is concerned. Thus, to this extent, the order appears to be not sustainable. 10. With regard to the other finding that the order dated 22.8.2007 passed by Superintendent of Police, Datia, whereby he had revised the earlier order dated 22.1.2022 and had deleted "one year" from penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect for one year appears to be an ignorance of spirit of Regulations of 226 and 270 of Police Regulations and thus, had rightly been quashed by the learned Single Judge. 11. As a natural conspectus, the present appeal is hereby partly allowed. The quashment of order dated 22.8.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby upheld but so far as quashment of the charge sheet dated 1.11.2000, the order dated 22.1.2002, whereby the respondent was penalized with punishment of stoppage of one increment for one year with cumulative effect and affirmed in the order dated 7.8.2002 passed by the Appellate Authority and upheld in the order dated 9.12.2010 passed in mercy appeal are concerned, the order of learned Single Judge is held to be bad in law, thus, the said order is hereby quashed to the said extent. 12. The penalty as imposed by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 22.1.2002 is hereby restored.